Nullify the War on Drugs

Public opinion now favors the outright legalization of marijuana with nearly three-out-of-four adults in favor of legalizing medical marijuana. These numbers should continue to grow, because the polls exhibit a type of “generation effect,” in that people are not changing their minds as they grow older. Some prominent and diverse figures, such as Joycelyn Elders (Bill Clinton’s Surgeon General) and the Reverend Pat Robertson now openly support the legalization of marijuana.

Ideally, libertarians want to end the war on all drugs, fully and immediately, but in reality that will only happen after necessary initial steps are taken. Colorado and Washington have already taken some steps by legalizing marijuana. Other states will surely follow.

Marijuana, of course, is still illegal everywhere under Federal law. Will the Feds do something about Colorado and Washington? You bet they will. They have already announced their intentions to target large-scale growers and distributors. They claim they will not go after consumers, if only due to a lack of resources. As President Obama said, “We’ve got bigger fish to fry.”

However, don’t be too sure that your president is telling you the truth. Candidate Obama said that medical marijuana was a state issue. However, under President Obama, raids committed on medical marijuana dispensaries have occurred at four times the rate as under President Bush. The government has also threatened landlords and banks that deal with medical marijuana dispensaries.

Nullification

The people of Colorado and Washington have effectively nullified US drug laws in their states, with respect to marijuana. Nullification occurs when a state, by legislation or referendum, invalidates a Federal law that it deems unconstitutional or otherwise harmful. Colorado and Washington have sent a powerful message that echoes far beyond the illegal drug market. For a complete treatment of the theory, history, and vital importance of this subject I recommend Thomas E. Woods’s book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.

In effect, the voters of Colorado and Washington have placed themselves and their states on equal legal footing with both national and international governments. This is important, because, if thanks to nullification, governments have to obtain acceptance, or at least acquiescence from subsidiary governments, rather than just imposing their dictates on them, they are more likely to act in a less threatening and harmful manner.

The two states are currently facing difficulties with constructing a state-regulated system for marijuana production, distribution, and sales, as well as establishing guidelines for the medical and industrial marijuana industries. This is not surprising, because by nature, governments at all levels do a poor job of organizing anything, especially if it is something new or different.This is why the Federal government is faced with a difficult choice. It can leave Coloradoans and Washingtonians alone and hope the nullification movement does not spread, or it can try to impose its will by marshalling the police resources necessary to start busting growers, retailers, and even consumers.

Part of the states’ difficulty is attributable to the Federal government’s unwillingness to show its hand. State Representative Matt Shea said that “The constant contradictions coming out of this (Obama) administration lead to a massive amount of uncertainties.” All this regulatory uncertainty is clearly bad for the development of legalized marijuana markets.

Sword of the State

Drug prohibition is the “sword of the state.” The state must be willing to use force against its citizens and it must occasionally demonstrate this willingness by harming, arresting, imprisoning, and even killing its citizens. Prohibition is the perfect instrument because it is typically used against distrusted minorities and poor people. Such groups have little political clout and are naturally lured into participating in illegal markets by the large amounts of money involved.

Peter Andreas argues in Smuggler Nation: How Illicit Trade Made America(2013) that the regulation and policing of illegal markets has been a primary driving force in the creation and growth of the central state apparatus since colonial times: “So even though warfare and welfare are typically viewed as the main drivers of big government, Smuggler Nation highlights another motor: increased government size, presence, and coercive powers via the policing of smuggling” (p. 7).The war on drugs is literally a street war. Smugglers, drug dealers, and street gangs – who make their money selling drugs – are armed to the teeth with high-powered weapons. The police counter with machine guns, bullet-proof vests and helmets, and even tanks. The collateral damage to innocent people has been enormous.

The war on drugs has led to the militarization of the police, a vast increase in police power, and a prison system with over 2 million prisoners, a significant number of which are imprisoned due to prohibition and smuggling. The war has also led to a significant decrease of our constitutional rights and a substantial increase in what the police, investigators, and the court system can do to limit or infringe on our rights.

Jury Nullification

If the federal government does intervene in Colorado and Washington, then the people can also resort to jury nullification as a legal remedy. Jury nullification occurs when a jury, after hearing a court case, finds a defendant not guilty, even when they believe the defendant actually committed the crime. Jury nullification can occur either when the jury disagrees with the law in question or they believe that it should not be applied in a particular case.

Therefore, people can make a law invalid if juries routinely apply jury nullification to the prosecution of crimes based on that law. Basically, if juries know they have the right to nullify a law, and that if many juries consider the law unwanted, unjust, or unconstitutional, then the law becomes de facto repealed.

There is a great deal of debate over jury nullification. The State would like to see jury nullification prohibited, however, they have thus far been unsuccessful. Short this power, jurors are prevented from learning their rights, in most jurisdictions. The court does this by preventing defense attorneys from discussing nullification with the jury and by giving instructions to juries that only vaguely hint at the possibility of nullification. Judges often bully juries to make their decisions based on the established laws of the state, rather than on whether a true crime has been committed.

In contrast, some legal scholars note that nullification has long been a right of juries. This right is supported by common law and legal precedent. The problem has been that juries are not informed of this right. However, there have been developments that suggest that jury nullification is making a comeback in the battle against big government.

J.D. Tuccille has pointed out that there has been a sharp increase in the number of “hung jury” trials in the United States, and the evidence suggests the increase is the result of de facto jury nullification. If that is the case and people are nullifying laws in large numbers across the country – and are unaware that they have a right to do so – then that is a very good sign. It means that a large and growing number of Americans recognize that their government and certain laws are corrupt and immoral and they are willing to disregard jury instructions from a judge.In 2012, New Hampshire passed a law that permits defense attorneys to inform juries of their rights to nullification. This is a good sign, although it is unclear how many juries have become “informed” as a result. Legal expert Timothy Lynch considers the law an improvement, but that it is too weak to be considered a full remedy for the rights of defendants and juries.

If the people of Colorado and Washington wisely use the power of jury nullification to protect otherwise law abiding consumers, growers, and distributors, the Federal government would be stripped of its power in that area. Moreover, such developments would spread the news about the power of jury nullification and we would once again reestablish a powerful antidote to big invasive government.

Prohibition has diverted police resources away from other law enforcement activities with the result that violent crime and crime against property is driven far higher than it would have been otherwise. To the extent that communities divert law enforcement resources from violent crimes to illegal drug offenses the risk of punishment for engaging in violent crime is reduced. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was actually a direct response to the acute rise in prohibition (1919-33) engendered gun violence.

PROHIBITION EQUATES TO MORE VIOLENT CRIME WHICH LEADS TO MORE CALLS FOR GUN CONTROL

The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada reviewed 15 studies that evaluated the association between violence and drug law enforcement. “Our ?ndings suggest that increasing drug law enforcement is unlikely to reduce drug market violence. Instead, the existing evidence base suggests that gun violence and high homicide rates may be an inevitable consequence of drug prohibition and that disrupting drug markets can paradoxically increase violence.

During alcohol prohibition all profits went to enrich criminals and corrupt politicians. Young men, while battling over turf, died every day on inner-city streets. A vast fortune was wasted on enforcement that could have gone on education. On top of the budget-busting prosecution and incarceration costs, billions in taxes were lost. Finally the economy collapsed! Sound familiar?

Prohibitionists and their gun-control criminal friends who live in a crack-house called Congress are having a ball. And it’s all on our tab.

As someone who has been accused of being one of those anti-government types I favor this simply because the war on drugs has been used to destroy every single civil liberty protection we have. The next time a cop wants to unilateraly search your car just ask yourself what is he searching for. It can’t be for stolen goods or to look for evidence of murder since he STILL needs a search warrant for those. Here comes the war on drugs and now cops can practically do body cavity searches on you whenever he wants.

I don’t think the feds or the states have right to outlaw a plant but I have a different view on actual toxic drugs such as meth amphetamine and other things that destroy people’s bodies and brains and also make them dangerously violent toward themselves and others. I think states should ban those types of things as bona fide proven public health and public safety risks. I also think states properly acting on the authority of its citizens has authority to ban any other toxic risk to its citizens. The key is that it is a risk and not something like a plant being outlawed because the pharmaceutical and chemical companies want it outlawed to vastly increase their profits while giving us poison in place of the non-toxic plant.

David, I agree alcohol kills too many people every year and is behind some of the most heinous crimes committed every day, but not everyone is so irresponsible and there are already laws against the acts that alcohol instigates and perpetrates. I own my body and will do what I want with it, the second I commit a crime against another person, I should be held accountable whether sober, drunk or high…it’s the same crime.

Actually, they DO have the right. We always talk about what the Amendments, or the Articles, have to say, but when was the LAST TIME we looked at the PREAMBLE to the US Constitution?
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_preamble.html
What do druggies do when they dont have the money for their drugs? They steal whatever they can get to get the money for them, which violates ‘Domestic Tranquility’ of having a safe home, or environment; that leads to violating ‘…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity’ by the person breaking into our homes to feed their drug habit; and then it violates ‘establishing Justice’ since there would be no laws to keep our ability to keep our nation safe; which ultimately destroys attempt to ‘form a more perfect Union’.
That’s what the Constitution is all about, folks.

I have a disease that causes pain most people can’t imagine. It started when I was 18 and I’m 29. Doctors had me on opiates for 6 years for pain management. Pain pills ended up destroying my life more than the actual pain. The fact is medical marijuana is the safest alternative that has any comparable relief that comes from pain medication.

@Joseph: You’ll notice that they can’t even keep this stuff out of prison…despite gross violations of the constitutional rights of ALL citizens in the name of fighting the drug war? They can ban meth all day long, and it won’t keep people from using it. The correct solution to the meth issue is to roll back the ban on prescription amphetamines that caused it to exist in the first place. MORE freedom, NOT less, is pretty much always the answer, because there is always some place where government interference is the root of the problem.

Nothing in the preamble mentioned drugs or plants, most of the founders grew marijuana. And since it was written, people who THINK they are smarter than the rest have been twisting words to insist whatever was written means what they want it to.BULLSHIT, written in English for WE THE PEOPLE, explained over and over in detail. Don’t need a court or a brainiac to say anything,if you don’t like it pass a constitutional amendment, but quit boring me!

There are laws against “druggies” or anyone else breaking into your home. That promotes general welfare. It’s called “consequences for unlawful actions” not “controlling personal lives IN CASE someone might choose to do the wrong thing”. The latter does not secure the blessings of LIBERTY and it CAN NOT do so. Attempting to control people’s actions that do not violate anyone else’s life, liberty or property because some of those people might choose to violate life, liberty or property with other actions is nothing more than tyranny, no matter how good the intentions are. It’s just one step below the Minority Report pre-crime scenario.

Scott must have missed the part that said “PLANT” to which our own government owns a patent on & their own DEA people have said that YES it does have medical purposes. Just goes to show us all that the government don’t even listen to the very people they have asked to investigate that “PLANT”

Well said Joe. The pharmaceutical lobbyists have the federal in their back pocket. Despite the overwhelming studies that show medical marijuana has significant medical purposes, the pharmaceutical companies make too much money pills.

Did they ever bother to even read it? Hey folks, if I want to bathe in gasoline..and smoke at the very same time….. do you really care? I’ll bet, as long as I don’t do that in your house.. or.. stick you with the medical bills if I somehow manage to live.. you really don’t care… so.. are drugs any different? A free man is free to make stupid mistakes too… look who they voted into the whitehouse……. You have no right to run my life.. and I sure as hell have zero right to run yours….. So.

like any war lately they don’t seem to be having much luck in making a dent in the drug trade an they have spent a heap of money trying you don’t put drug dealers in jail you give them a pure dose of their own product dealers might get the message

Gee, Jonothan, did I actually SAY that everyone who uses weed is a thief? I hope you don’t feel like someone is stepping on your toes, or anything. If you’re NOT a thief, then why get upset about something that I didn’t say?
But since you OBVIOUSLY didn’t GET IT, We have aproblem with break-in’s and those who get caught, were doing it to get weed money. Gee, are you saying that NOBODY steals other people’s things (last I saw, this was a felony crime) to feed the demons?

Funny how people constantly call out drugs as a hazard, yet never complain that sodium fluoride is in their drinking water! It’s toxic, kills brain cells, and yet the government mandates that its there! No outcry from the antidrug crowd on that? No, no, just buy into the propaganda without research of what your told to hate! By the way, the Preamble speaks for us, the people. As a means to govern over ourselves, not some all powerful government entity. Thus, is the reason it begins We the People! The government’s purpose is to secure our rights found in the Constitution, which they are failing! Not to oversee our private affairs nor our choices, unless we violate the rights of another citizen! People break in to people’s homes is an economic problem, not a drug problem. If you want to ban drugs for that reason, we should also ban Nikes, gold chains, most electronics, or pretty much anything that can be bought with money! What? But that’s crazy, you say! Well, just as crazy as people believing drugs are the root of crime!

Terry – bathing in gasoline and smoking at the same time CAN jack up my taxes, or health insurance, if you don’t have insurance.
If YOUR stupid mistakes costs the life of another person, how do you think that you have the right to get away with it?
Some people just don’t think about anybody but themselves, do you?

Wonder why taxes are so high? Hint, the government should regulate that, the government should control this, the government should protect me from all of my unfounded fears, the government should force people into my moral code, based on my beliefs! This goes for a lot more than just drugs, for they are just an analogy of the bigger picture. That picture is called, generalized conditioning to accept authoritarian control! You ask for it and they delivered. Too bad, I also have to pay for it all!

Remember, freedom is everyone being able to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with regards to the same! My rights end where yours begin and visa versa, despite our differences and beliefs! Fascism, is close to the same, except you place a moral restriction on rights and freedom! Everyone is free, so long as you share the majorities moral code! The problem with that is, morals change over time, so you better hope they stay within your liking. Or a day will come when you will be the one restricted of your freedom and stripped of your rights! I believe in freedom for all citizens, even if I disagree with their beliefs and morals!

the war on drugs is a war on people…and an excuse to militarize the police …now every small town police force has a swat team…drugs aren’t the problem here…the gangs are making huge profits of of drugs to fund their criminal enterprise….take away the drugs by legalization…and like the Chicago alcohol gangs they would collapse…there is no way to win this war on drugs..there is a problem with drugs in the prison system and they have no rights or privacy… so without surrendering all of our rights and privacy we can’t win this and won’t even then…

I agree that drugs should be distributed by medical doctors at local clinics. But they should be registered, and the privilage of having a drivers licence be revocked. Any children in the household must be removed.I believe what they do to themselves is their business but and this a big but. They do not have a right to endanger their children or the public with impaired abilities. The penality for a drug addict that drives or injures a child while under the influence should be summary execution. LET THEM HARM THEMSELVES do all of the drugs they want and get them at a cost that would eliminate their need to commit crime. But if they are unable to keep from harming others let them suffer severe retribution.